The Labelling of Ken Clarke - why should we care if he's a "Liberal Tory"?

[miss_s_b]

Ken Clarke is a long-time political operator, and as such has attracted many labels. The one currently doing the rounds is Liberal Tory, and this is the one being chucked about in the press as a reason why Lib Dems are/ought to be supporting him in his role as Justice Minister, and his proposed reforms to the justice system.

With all due respect to our journalistic cousins, I submit that this is the wrong reason to be supporting him. The reason we ought to be supporting him is not his political convictions and background. The reason we ought to be supporting him is that, alongside his many other experiences and qualifications, he is a QC. He knows the justice system, knows how it works (and doesn't), and has contacts in the profession from whom he can gain current insights.

If you're a Lib Dem, you should be a supporter of evidence-based policy making (as opposed to policy and ideology based evidence selection). Ken Clarke might be a Tory - and my belief is that if you're going to call him a Liberal Tory, he's a Liberal Tory, rather than a Liberal Whig who is in the Tory party - but he is a person who is well-qualified and experienced to make evidence-based judgements in the field of the justice system.

The fact that a lot of the judgements he is making are in accord with the sort of stuff I have believed since I did my law degree only make this easier for me.

---

Comments

[pseudomonas]

I'm not sure I agree with your point. I agree with Ken Clarke on what he's proposing here, but I'm quite happy to disagree with legally trained politicians such as Tony Blair and Michael Howard. I find more important than his credentials the fact that he seems to be actively trying to optimise for rehabilitation rather than just deterrence, and doesn't seem to hold the principle that dehumanising criminals is a morally desirable stance.